[Imports] NYC building + address import (was Re: Buildings & Address in Washington, DC, USA.)

[Mikel Maron]

> That is at the core of my frustration with the NYC import, and now the DC import.
 
I'm part of the DC import process. I've discussed this with DC gov. I think the DC community should be able to discuss this themselves, and that will happen best without frustration from the outside.

-Mikel

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron


On Friday, June 6, 2014 6:30 AM, Serge Wroclawski <emacsen at gmail.com> wrote:
 

>
>
>On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Alex Barth <alex at mapbox.com> wrote:
>
>> What hits _me_ the wrong way is how you present an import we are working
>> hard on doing right in a pretty unbalanced light. This "we" includes you as
>> you've invested a ton of time into this project too which I'm thankful for.
>
>I did put a lot (not a ton, but a lot) of work into the NYC import
>>
>> I'd like to see a completely different attitude in interaction on this list.
>> How can we make this work?
>
>The issue I have with the approach that has been taken by MapBox is twofold:
>
>1. Responsiveness
>2. Cleanup
>3. Honesty
>
>The issue of responsiveness is straightforward. When a community
>member finds a problem with how something is mapped and we go through
>the speicifc steps outlined in the import process, and the individual
>community members creating the problem are notified, I think there's a
>reasonable expectation that they'll stop. Maybe they'd respond to OSM
>messages, or respond to notes that they created, or respond to github.
>My experience is consistently that with your mapper staff that they
>simply don't respond to any of these. The only thing they've responded
>to is DWG intervention (ie blocks).
>
>That's a really huge hammer to have to bring down, but the alternative
>is that there's bad data in OSM.
>
>The second issue is cleanup, which ties very much into the first one.
>There would be no big problem with waiting days and needing to contact
>three or four people before getting a response, if the data didn't
>stay bad. But instead, we see data that was put in badly and has
>stayed bad. It's really a mess, which could have been fixed if the
>attitude had just been to go a bit slower and when someone brings up
>an issue, to take it seriously and not ignore it until days later
>(importing with the problem in the meantime).
>
>
>The biggest issue for me, though, is honesty.
>
>I feel like you, Alex, are playing a game with the community. The game
>is that you don't lie, but you skillfully omit. Reading the DC
>proposal was therefore an exercise of "What is he not saying?", and
>that's not in the spirit of collaboration.
>
>Consider this... I still haven't seen an affirmative statement that
>you're going to use paid mappers, yet the subtext is that this is what
>will happen. If you're going to use paid remote mappers, just say so.
>Just say "This is our plan." and let the community provide honest
>feedback in response. I don't have a problem with paid remote mappers,
>but I do have a problem when I feel that someone is trying to pull the
>wool over my eyes.
>
>The import process is supposed to be about collaboration and
>consensus, and when important details that the community cares about
>are omitted, it gives the appearance of a negotiation, rather than a
>collaboration.
>
>That is at the core of my frustration with the NYC import, and now the
>DC import.
>
>
>- Serge
>
>_______________________________________________
>Imports mailing list
>Imports at openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20140606/012e1ed2/attachment.html>